Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of macrophyte heterogeneity and food availability on structural parameters of the macroinvertebrate community in a Pampean stream

  • Primary research paper
  • Published:
Hydrobiologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Environmental heterogeneity in natural ecosystems influences several parameters at the population and community levels. In freshwater ecosystems, habitat heterogeneity can be provided by macrophyte species with different structural shapes. Previous studies suggest that aquatic plants with more complex architectures will support higher number, biomass, and taxon richness of macroinvertebrates than plants with simpler shape. We investigated the influence of macrophyte structural heterogeneity (quantified by fractal dimension) and food availability (represented by epiphytic biomass) on several parameters (number of individuals, biomass, body size distribution, taxon richness, and diversity) of the macroinvertebrate community in a Pampean stream. Four submerged macrophyte species (Egeria densa, Elodea ernstae, Ceratophyllum demersum, and Stuckenia striata) and associated macroinvertebrates were sampled in late spring, summer, and autumn. Plants were photographed and fractal dimension was estimated from the images by the box-counting method. Fractal dimension was independent of plant surface area per unit of macrophyte biomass and differed significantly among species. Mean fractal dimension varied between 1.29 and 1.62, and increased following the sequence E. densa → S. striata → E. ernstae → C. demersum. Macrophyte species with higher fractal dimension supported a greater abundance of macroinvertebrates, especially those of small body size (500–1,000 μm); but fractal dimension was unrelated to macroinvertebrate biomass, richness, and diversity. However, overall animal biomass was significantly associated to the epiphytic abundance. Consequently, macrophyte heterogeneity influences macroinvertebrate density and body size distribution, while animal biomass depends on epiphytic food resources provided by plants.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • APHA, 1995. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association Inc., Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attrill, M., J. Strong & A. Ashley, 2000. Are macroinvertebrate communities influenced by seagrass structural complexity? Ecography 23: 114–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, M., J. Gerritsen, B. Snyder & J. Stribling, 1999. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish, 2nd edn. EPA 841–B99002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C., T. Poe, J. French III & D. Schloesser, 1988. Relationships of phytomacrofauna to surface area in naturally occurring macrophyte stands. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7: 129–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattaneo, A. & J. Kalff, 1980. The relative contribution of aquatic macrophytes and their epiphytes to the production of macrophytes beds. Limnology and Oceanography 25: 280–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheruvelil, K., P. Soranno & R. Serbin, 2000. Macroinvertebrates associated with submerged macrophytes: sample size and power to detect effects. Hydrobiologia 441: 133–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheruvelil, K., P. Soranno, J. Madsen & M. Roberson, 2002. Plant architecture and epiphytic macroinvertebrate communities: the role of an exotic dissected macrophyte. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 21: 261–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clench, H., 1979. How to make regional lists of butterflies: some thoughts. Journal Lepidopterist’s Society 33: 216–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colwell, R.K., 2006. EstimateS: Statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples, version. Version 8. Persistent URL. purl.oclc.org/estimates.

  • Connor, E. & E. McCoy, 1979. The statistics and biology of the species-area relationship. American Naturalist 113: 791–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, S., L. Barmuta, O. Sarnelle, K. Kratz & S. Diehl, 1997. Quantifying spatial heterogeneity in streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16: 174–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cremona, F., D. Planas & M. Lucotte, 2008. Biomass and composition of macroinvertebrate communities associated with different types of macrophyte architectures and habitats in a large fluvial lake. Fundamental and Applied Limnology 171: 119–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cyr, H. & J. Downing, 1988. The abundance of phytophilous invertebrates on different species of submerged macrophytes. Freshwater Biology 20: 365–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Marzio, W., M. Tortorelli & L. Freyre, 2003. Diversidad de peces en un arroyo de llanura. Limnetica 22: 71–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibble, E. & S. Thomaz, 2009. Use of fractal dimension to assess habitat complexity and its influence on dominant invertebrates inhabiting tropical and temperate macrophytes. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 24: 93–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dionne, M. & C. L. Folt, 1991. An experimental analysis of macrophyte growth forms as fish foraging habitat. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48: 123–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feijoó, C. & R. Lombardo, 2007. Baseline water quality and macrophytes assemblages in Pampean streams: a regional approach. Water Research 41: 1399–1410.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. & R. Warwick, 1994. Metazoan community structure in relation to the fractal dimension of marine macroalgae. Marine Ecology Progress Series 103: 150–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giorgi, A., C. Feijoó & G. Tell, 2005. Primary producers in a Pampean stream: temporal variation and structuring role. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 1699–1718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gotelli, N. J. & R. K. Colwell, 2001. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters 4: 379–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregg, W. & F. Rose, 1982. The effects of aquatic macrophytes on the stream microenvironment. Aquatic Botany 14: 309–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross, E., D. Erhard & E. Ivanyi, 2003. Allelopathic activity of Ceratophyllum demersum L. and Najas marina ssp. intermedia (Wolfgang) Casper. Hydrobiologia 506: 583–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halley, J., S. Hartley, A. Kallimanis, W. Kunin, J. Lennon & S. Sgardelis, 2004. Uses and abuses of fractal methodology in ecology. Ecology Letters 7: 254–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, A., M. Attrill & P. Cotton, 2006. Effects of habitat complexity on the diversity and abundance of macrofauna colonizing artificial kelp holdfasts. Marine Ecology Progress Series 325: 93–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heck, K. & L. Crowder, 1991. Habitat structure and predator-prey interactions in vegetated aquatic systems. In Bell, S., E. McCoy & H. Mushinsky (eds), Habitat structure: the physical arrangement of the objects in space. Chapman and Hall, London: 281–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchens J. Jr., J. Wallace & E. Romaniszyn, 2004. Role of Podostemum ceratophyllum Michx. in structuring benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in a southern Appalachian river. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23: 713–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffries, M., 1993. Invertebrate colonization of artificial pondweeds of differing fractal dimension. Oikos 67: 142–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur, R. H., 1965. Patterns of species diversity. Biological Review 40: 510–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur, R. H. & J. W. Mac Arthur, 1961. On bird species diversity. Ecology 42: 594–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAbendroth, L., P. Ramsay, A. Foggo, S. Rundle & D. Bilton, 2005. Does macrophyte fractal complexity drive invertebrate diversity, biomass and body size distributions? Oikos 111: 279–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McEwen, G., M. Johnson & T. Folsom, 1994. A statistical analysis of the performance of the folsom plankton sample splitter, based upon test observations. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics 7: 502–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, D., J. Lawton, M. Dodson & M. Williamson, 1985. Fractal dimension of vegetation and the distribution of arthropod body length. Nature 314: 731–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padial, A., S. Thomaz & A. Agostinho, 2009. Effects of structural heterogeneity provided by the floating macrophyte Eichhornia azurea on the predation efficiency and habitat use of the small Neotropical fish Moenkhausia sanctaefilomenae. Hydrobiologia 624: 161–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasband, W., 1997–2008. ImageJ. U.S. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/.

  • Robson, B., L. Barmuta & P. Fairweather, 2005. Methodological and conceptual issues in the search for a relationship between animal body-size distributions and benthic habitat architecture. Marine and Freshwater Research 56: 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, A., 1990. The role of seaweed complexity in structuring Hawaiian epiphytal amphipod communities. Hydrobiologia 194: 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sokal, R. & F. Rohlf, 1995. Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. W. H. Freeman and Co, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, T., T. Shumaker & T. Radzio, 2003. Linear and nonlinear effects of habitat structure on composition and abundance in the macroinvertebrate community of a large river. American Midland Naturalist 149: 293–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugihara, G. & R. May, 1990. Application of fractals in ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 5: 79–86.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Taniguchi, H., S. Nakato & M. Tokeshi, 2003. Influences of habitat complexity on the diversity and abundance of epiphytic invertebrates on plants. Freshwater Biology 48: 718–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tessier, C., A. Cattaneo, B. Pinel-Alloul, C. Hudon & D. Borcard, 2008. Invertebrate communities and epiphytic biomass associated with metaphyton and emergent and submerged macrophytes in a large river. Aquatic Sciences 70: 10–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomaz, S., E. Dibble, L. Evangelista, J. Higuti & L. Bini, 2008. Influence of aquatic macrophyte habitat complexity on invertebrate abundance and richness in tropical lagoons. Freshwater Biology 53: 358–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warfe, D. & L. Barmuta, 2004. Habitat structural complexity mediates the foraging success of multiple predator species. Oecologia 141: 171–176.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Warfe, D. & L. Barmuta, 2006. Habitat structural complexity mediates food web dynamics in a freshwater macrophyte community. Oecologia 150: 141–154.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Warfe, D., L. Barmuta & S. Wotherspoon, 2008. Quantifying habitat structure: surface convolution and living space for species in complex environment. Oikos 117: 1764–1773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, M. & J. Lawton, 1991. Fractal geometry of ecological habitats. In Bell, S., E. McCoy & H. Mushinsky (eds), Habitat structure: the physical arrangement of the objects in space. Chapman and Hall, London: 69–86.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Fernando Momo for valuable discussion in the early steps of the study and Rafael Marcé for their useful comments on the manuscript. We also thank Santiago Doyle for his contribution to the development of the fractal dimension estimation technique, Matias Eöry for providing previous field data, the landowner and the manager of Santa María del Arroyo farm for providing access to the study site, María Andrea Casset, Analía Álvarez, and Patricia Aoki for field and laboratory assistance, and Mary Eve Coviella for the revision of the English text. The manuscript was improved by the suggestions and comments of the editor and two reviewers. This project was supported by the Universidad Nacional de Luján.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instituto de Ecología y Desarrollo Sustentables (INEDES) and Departamento de Ciencias Básicas, Universidad Nacional de Luján, B6700APJ, Ruta 5 y Avenida Constitución, Ciudad de Luján, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Nicolás Ferreiro, Claudia Feijoó, Adonis Giorgi & Leonardo Leggieri

  2. CONICET, C1033AAJ, Avenida Rivadavia 1917, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Nicolás Ferreiro & Adonis Giorgi

Authors
  1. Nicolás Ferreiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claudia Feijoó
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Adonis Giorgi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Leonardo Leggieri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicolás Ferreiro.

Additional information

Handling editor: Nuria Bonada

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ferreiro, N., Feijoó, C., Giorgi, A. et al. Effects of macrophyte heterogeneity and food availability on structural parameters of the macroinvertebrate community in a Pampean stream. Hydrobiologia 664, 199–211 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-010-0599-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-010-0599-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation